Dear Editor,
Please refer to an editorial, which appeared in your issue of, Tuesday, June 28, captioned ‘Déjà vu’.
Within recent times, the Stabroek News has published a few editorials on this new technological innovation-installation and operation of parking meters which, among other things, seeks to modernize Georgetown. Of course, we totally understand that your newspaper has its own position on the project, demonstrated by the particular angle, tone and pattern of its editorials on the parking meter project. Nothing is wrong with that.
However, we, at City Hall, are acutely aware of almost all of the things mentioned in this and other related editorials in your newspaper on this subject, including more inclusivity and deepening the democratic process at the council. These values are vital to the sustainable development of the city; we do not take them lightly or for granted in our efforts at the Georgetown municipality. Beyond that, we have searched your editorials but could not find one suggestion of a viable alternative to the parking meters for the city to raise revenue. The crux of the matter is revenue.
It is very clear to us, that, the city council could not function and discharge its responsibilities to citizens unless it has the money to do so. It is common knowledge that the city is statutorily obligated to provide a wide range of vital services including drainage, roads, street lighting, garbage collection, enforcement of compliance to city by-laws, maternal and child welfare, markets, cemeteries, parks and gardens, and open spaces. Under those very laws the council has the authority to raise its own money to accord citizens those municipal services.
We know that garbage collection and disposal as a single service accounts for about 9.5% of the council’s expenditure. Council is now contemplating ways of increasing and making this service more efficient because of the demographics, types of waste generated, and high consumerism, which has been seeping into our society. The efficient provision of the other mentioned services will take more than $3 billion a year, an amount we have never collected at the municipality. In fact, even if all property owners were to pay up their rates we would not collect that ambitious sum because rates are so unbelievably low that some property owners have been saying to us that they are ready and willing to pay more. But the council must wait on the new valuation of properties in the city.
Nonetheless, we have been very focused on our mandate to make the best out of a very difficult financial situation. We have a very shallow purse with which to manage the ever increasing demands of the city. We are doing our best in the extant circumstances but this is not enough to lift Georgetown out of the doldrums of poverty, ugliness, confusion and disorder. The city needs money.
Of course, the question of the installation and operation of parking meters is not only about money but also a studied approach, by the council, to deal with traffic congestion in the city, the reduction of pollution and other related environmental consequences, inefficiency, job creation and ensuring an enabling business environment that will boost investors’ confidence and encourage more investments in the city.
Whilst we appreciate the views of Stabroek News and, as usual, its keen interest in city affairs, we are bothered by the fact that all of its editorials fall short of suggesting to the council a practical and workable approach not only to raise revenue but to address the challenges that are affecting the reputation, image, environment and economics of our capital.
Arguably, it is not the responsibility of Stabroek News, or any newspaper for that matter, to offer any such suggestion; it is the unenviable duty of the city council. However, given its position on the issue it is not unreasonable to expect those editorializing on this subject to suggest alternatives on how the council might raise much needed revenue for the city.
This is an important point because the media, particularly through their editorials, have enormous potential to set the national agenda ‒ the pictures in the heads of citizens ‒ and to influence public opinion and shape public perception on issues and events affecting society. Clearly then, if this privilege is used by our local media to discuss and shape public opinion on the parking meter project then ipso facto it is also expected that they will, perhaps, in some way, suggest appropriate, viable alternatives to it. Therefore, it is our view that the editorials focus on the process not the substance of the issue at hand; both are equally important to the specific and general interests of the municipality.
Nevertheless, in another few days, we will be advertising one hundred jobs for this project. Many of our young people, qualified and skilled, who have been unemployed for quite some considerable time, will now have the opportunity to work, earn and begin to take care of the basic necessities of life.
In fact, we have already employed two such young women one of whom has twelve subjects but could not find employment even though she is qualified.
Finally, we wish to note that this project, which has an initial input of US$10,000,000.00, is not only the first of its kind in Georgetown but also the largest investment that has come to the city council in more than fifty years.
Therefore, we are very excited and look forward to implementing this project, which would help modernize Georgetown in the context of a green city, and allow it to stand shoulder to shoulder with the other cities of the world.
Yours faithfully,
Royston King
Town Clerk
